Mary Shelley: A Review (Review #2040)

MARY SHELLEY

Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus has haunted the imagination for over a century. The real story of its creator is more haunted and tragic. Mary Shelley is a respectable film with one good, strong central performance that makes up, barely, for its stodgy manner. 

Young Mary Godwin (Elle Fanning) has a fraught relationship with her stepmother, Mary Jane Clairmont (Joanne Froggatt). She is, however, fond of her stepsister Claire (Bel Powley). In a mix to both expand her education and bring relief to the household and struggling bookshop, her father William Godwin (Stephen Dillane) sends Mary to Scotland to stay with family friends. Here, Mary meets the dashing renegade poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (Douglas Booth). 

Claire hoodwinks her family into sendind for Mary and soon she returns full-time. She also reencounters Shelley, and a romance begins. Mary is initially unaware that Percy is still married and with a daughter, but soon their passion cannot be denied. Despite Mr. Godwin's own radical views, he is appalled at the liaison. He is more appalled when Mary and Percy run off together, accompanied by Claire. They live the high life until debt gets in the way. Mary has and then loses their child, in part to Percy's wicked ways. 

Claire, for her part, has an affair with more dashing and more renegade poet Lord Byron (Tom Sturridge). They go to his Geneva estate, where Lord Byron is somewhat pleased with their arrival. Mary is a haunted figure: haunted by the death of her mother after Mary's birth, by the loss of her own child, and by ideas of reviving the dead. In this dark and stormy season, Mary will pick up Lord Byron's challenge of all writing ghost stories to create her masterpiece, Frankenstein. Will she receive the recognition that her masterwork merits? Will her marriage to Percy, now free after his wife's suicide, bring happiness? Will her friendship with Byron's doctor frenemy John William Polidori (Ben Hardy) grow to something more?

If anything, Mary Shelley is elevated by Elle Fanning's performance. Affecting a convincing British accent, Fanning shows Mary to be this girl growing into a woman of renown and resolve. As the film goes on, Fanning reveals Mary's doubts, struggles, even shock at the man for whom she has sacrificed so much. At one point, one of Percy's friends suggested that they become involved. She rejets the suggestion, but then is shocked when Percy advocates that she should have taken up the offer. We see in Fanning how Mary is more than upset at Percy's manner. We see her sense of betrayal, that his love for her is not the way she loves him.

It is quite a good performance, and Elle Fanning should be commended for bringing Mary Shelley to life. She is not a bon vivant but also not a woman of sorrow. Instead, Fanning's Mary is a complicated figure.

I was also surprised to see that Douglas Booth was actually not bad as Percy Shelley. Booth is an exceptionally pretty figure. However, in the few projects that I have seen him in (a television adaption of Great Expectations and the horror of Jupiter Ascending), Booth has been a walking mannequin. Yes, he is very pretty, but also very blank, unable to communicate much in terms of emotion. Mary Shelley is probably the best that he has been when it comes to what I have seen of his filmography. Booth has a particularly good moment when he speaks surprisingly elegantly about his loveless marriage.

On the whole, I found the performances were all good to strong, a credit to director Haifaa Al-Mansour. Where Al-Mansour and screenwriter Emma Jensen go wrong is in making Mary Shelley a very stodgy affair. It is well-acted, but it is also very stately, a bit stiff at time. The actors, with all their good work, played the parts. That is, however, the problem. They played parts. They did not play people.

I liked Mary Shelley just enough to give it a mild recommendation. It could have been better. However, it is just good enough. Like her novel, I figure a biography is better than the film. 

1797-1851

DECISION: C+

Charlie Kirk: A Personal Reflection

1993-2025

These have been two hard weeks for me. I have had to replace all four tires one week, then replace the kitchen faucet the next week. The little that I have in savings is fast depleting. I had my-now former best friend ignore me for two weeks straight while we worked at the same location. Not a word, not a greeting, not an invite to lunch or breakfast, not a hello, not a goodbye. All these stressors caused me to miss part of my very high minimum payments, which I figure will increase. That, in turn, will increase my already heavy financial burden. I felt overwhelmed, distressed and depressed. I felt almost cruelly tested by God, forever attempting to show that I trusted Him by enduring harder and harder tests.

Then, the sight of a man, younger than myself, shot in the neck, blood gushing frenziedly, for holding an open-air debate, served as a terrible reminder that my troubles are in the long run, bearable. 

Charlie Kirk's assassination is monstrous. It is evil. It is damnable, and damn anyone who celebrates or condones his murder. Full stop. 

I saw the initial video, and it will shake me to my very core for however long I live. The details are in my mind: him putting the microphone down, the pop, the hole in his neck, the blood...dear God, the blood, the keeling over to the left. I cannot begin to imagine the total horror of his final moments. 

He expected yesterday to be a perhaps mocking back-and-forth between those who disagreed with his various views and himself. No one expects a particular day to be their last day, especially if you are as young as he was. I also figure that he was not expecting to be murdered before thousands for debating those who disagreed with him.

Everything about this horror distresses me: the crime itself, the celebratory nature among some who insist that "kindness matters", the ease to which violence is seen as justified because of disagreements. It is all so cruel, so evil, so terribly disheartening to me. However, I think of what Charlie Kirk was doing when someone shot him down. He was participating in something as old, if not older than, the Republic itself: asking and answering questions in a free and open exchange of ideas. 

Whether one agreed or disagreed with Charlie Kirk is unimportant. Whatever his views, he had the right to express and share them. He had the right to create an organization to promote those views (Turning Point USA). He had that First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Charlie Kirk's assassination is counter to that vital right. We, as a nation and as a society, cannot tolerate, cannot accept, cannot endorse a culture where people can feel justified in killing those who hold different points of view.

Sadly, the warning signs that some believe a bullet should settle all debate have been there for many years. 

I go to the Congressional baseball team shooting in 2017, where someone attempted a mass assassination of Republican Congressmen because of their politics. 

I go to the idolization, at times literal, of Luigi Mangione after his arrest, charged with assassinating United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangione was not condemned in certain circles for allegedly shooting a man in the back, murdering him in cold blood. He was, instead, feted and declared a "thirst trap". 

I go to the attempted assassination of then-former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Had he not moved his head a few inches, we would have seen a former President and presidential candidate murdered before our eyes. Lest we forget, one man, Corey Comperatore, was murdered in the attempted assassination.

I go, now, today, to the slaughter of another man who was murdered for disagreeing with others and having people defend their views to him publicly in an open forum.

Each of these attempted or committed murders has a common denominator: the demonic belief that one can, perhaps should, kill those whose views you find more than objectionable. That oft-used phrase of "violence is not the answer" remains true. A free and open exchange of ideas cannot exist if any side decides that they have the power to execute whomever it disagrees with. That is terrorism. That is fascism. That is not what any American, on the Left or Right, can accept, support, endorse or celebrate.

Did I agree with Charlie Kirk? Did I find him and/or his views distasteful? I will not tell you, because my personal views about his political views do not shape my horror and anguish at his murder. I would feel the same if this had happened to Brian Tyler Cohen, a liberal commentator who is of Kirk's generation. I cannot find it in my heart or soul to think that killing your political opponents is right or moral on any level.

My heart breaks that anyone would think that such a thing would be right or moral on any level.

Politics is not my life. I vote on a regular basis. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. I have my views, which are not uniform with one political party or another. I have criticized and ridiculed both sides. I have, at times, been appalled at some of what I hear from our political leaders and commentators. In all that, however, not once have I ever thought that those who disagreed with me should be exterminated. That anyone would think such a thing fills me, not with dread but with despair.

We cannot, we must not, kill those whose views are not like our own. No matter how odious you find those views, no matter how opposed you are to those views, committing murder does not make you heroic. It makes you satanic. Moreover, we cannot, we must not, justify or celebrate those who commit murder of political opponents. 

Charlie Kirk was murdered. We cannot celebrate murder. If we are not allowed to speak freely because someone believes that he or she has the right, if not duty, to kill us for openly holding a different viewpoint, we do not live in a free society but in a terror state. 

We never know if this day will be our last. We are today remembering that twenty-four years ago, so many were living their last day. Charlie Kirk did not know that yesterday, September 10, 2025, would be his last day of life. As I reflect on the horrors of yesterday, and remember the horrors of September 11, 2001, I remind myself to cherish those whom I love and that a late payment is not the end of the world. 

I close with this. Contrary to what some of my online compatriots say, I am not old enough to have been Charlie Kirk's father. True, I am much older than he was. As such, I have seen all sorts of terrible things. I never thought or imagined that I would live to see the political assassination of an activist, let alone an assassination that people dance to. It pains me beyond measure to see his birth and death date so close. I feel so much pain for his widow, his children, and his parents whom I presume are still alive. 

My deepest condolences to all of them.

Weapons (2025): A Review

WEAPONS

I went into Weapons thoroughly blank, with no knowledge of what it was about. It was just highly recommended by people that I know. I left Weapons pleased that it was a good film. It is not a great film. However, as things go, I think Weapons gives audiences what they ask.

Told through various chapters covering the chronicled events from various angles in nonchronological order, Weapons begins in voiceover from a child. The child reports that at Maybrook Elementary school, the entire third grade class of Miss Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) has disappeared. Well, all but one: Alex Lilly (Gary Christopher), who remains but who is silent. The mass disappearances of Miss Gandy's students in the middle of the night sends shockwaves throughout the community. 

Some of the parents, such as Archer Graff (Josh Brolin) insist that Justine has something to do with the disappearances, some of which were caught on camera. Justine, who is caring about her students but is also a bit of a tart and lush, continues pressing to speak to Alex. Her boss, Marcus Miller (Benedict Wong) keeps warning her against that. Eventually, she reconnects with Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a cop and old flame. 

She not only pumps Paul for information but gets him to fall off the wagon. Paul has his own problems separate from his fraught relationship with Donna (June Diane Raphael), his wife or live-in girlfriend who is also the daughter of his boss. Paul also has to contend with two-bit criminal and junkie James (Austin Abrams). James may be high, but he also knows the shocking truth about what happened to the kids. This does not save him, however, from a brutal end. 

The shocking truth does not spare Marcus, who has become something of a zombie who tries to kill Justine in front of Archer. What is going on? What role if any does Alex's great-aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan) have in this sordid tale? There is witchcraft at work here, one that has netted innocents like Alex. Will parents and teachers find the missing kids? Who will make it out alive from this wickedness?

Weapons is divided into six chapters: Justine, Archer, Paul, James, Marcus and Alex. Each part gives us both bits of information about this case as well as filling in parts from other sections. For example, Justine ends with Marcus' shocking attack on her. We pick up in Marcus not only how this formerly pleasant and well-meaning man ended up a crazed zombified figure trying to murder Justine but how he came to do so while wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt. Marcus shows us that he had been enjoying a nice documentary with his life-partner Terry (Clayton Ferris) when Aunt Gladys unexpectedly came to them. Terry was wearing a Minnie Mouse shirt.

I did get a sense that Weapons was drawing a bit from Rashomon at least in giving us various viewpoints when it came to the overall story. I am not comparing Rashomon with Weapons or suggesting that the latter is on the same level as the former. I am merely saying that Weapons puts bits of other characters' stories until we get to that particular character's section. We get that there is or was a relationship between Justine and Paul in Justine. It is not until Paul that we get confirmation that he is both a recovering alcoholic and that he did schtup her as a result of falling off the wagon. How James came back into Paul's line of sight first seen in Paul gets revealed in James. It is an effective manner of telling the overall story, though it made it longer than I think it should have been.

Weapons gives viewers just enough to tease people about the mystery. Writer/director Zach Cregger kept things going well, building on one story to push the next one forward. I think Weapons works well because the performances never went overboard, even when some of the characters were essentially zombies. These moments were more shocking than silly. Granted, there was laughter from the audience at certain points. I can see why people laughed, but I did not think it was anything that would make me join in. 

I think that one element that makes Weapons work is that it takes the premise seriously enough without being morose or idiotic. That is a major credit given some of the scenes, such as a parent being a zombie apparently about to attack someone. Josh Brolin did well as Archer, the grieving father whose obsession in finding his bully son shifts his perspective from hostile towards Justine to becoming her ally. I am unfamiliar with Julia Garner, but I think she in her performance showed Justine to be flawed on a personal level but whose flaws did not extend to the classroom. I spent much of Weapons trying to figure out who Paul was, and it wasn't until the credits that I saw it was Alden Ehrenreich. The man who has at times struggled to escape his failed Solo effort does a good job as the troubled Paul. 

I think too much praise has been given to Amy Madigan as Aunt Gladys, the mysterious figure at the center of the wickedness. Yes, she is appropriately creepy as the shadowy force of evil. However, at times I did if not laugh at least smile at her efforts. More credit should be given to Cary Christopher as Alex, the innocent caught in Gladys' monstrous clutches. 

As a side note, I asked myself that the question people in town should have asked is not "Why did the children from Miss Gandy's class disappear?" but "Why was Alex the only one spared?". A lot of the case would have been solved if the police had pursued the second question rather than the first.

Weapons is an effective horror film, if a bit long. It works for what it is, even with the voiceover that begins and ends the film. In a weak year, Weapons is one of the better films that I have seen. 

DECISION: B-

The Naked Gun (2025): A Review

THE NAKED GUN

Leslie Nielsen was seen as a purely dramatic actor until he appeared in Airplane! where his deadpan manner made things funnier. The television series spoof Police Squad! and its film adaptation The Naked Gun cemented Nielsen's status as a comic actor to where I think people only saw him as that. I think that people soon could not see the forest for the trees when it came to Nielsen, opting to pigeonhole him to spoofs when he could have done more. With the revived The Naked Gun, it seems to try and want to do with Liam Neeson what the first Naked Gun did for Nielsen. More light chuckles than straight-out howlfest, The Naked Gun is mercifully short but not as funny as its predecessors.

Detective Frank Drebin, Jr. (Neeson) foils a bank robbery by disguising himself as a child. Unfortunately, his actions end up creating chaos and he is reassigned to a car accident where foul play is suspected. Alongside his partner, Ed Hocken, Jr. (Paul Walter Houser), Drebin seems fine to let the accident that killed software engineer Simon Davenport be reported as a suicide. Drebin does, however, find a matchbook that he finds curious. One person who won't accept that Simon's death was a suicide is his sister, Beth (Pamela Anderson). Beth, a crime novelist, suspects that it is murder. She suspects that Simon's death is connected to his employer, tech billionaire Richard Cane (Danny Huston). 

She is not far off, for Cane is involved. He is also involved in the bank robbery, where we find that a Plot Device was stolen. This Plot Device is part of Cane's nefarious scheme to go all Doctor Strangelove on the world. Frank Drebin, Jr. and Beth soon become thorns in Cane's side. Frank and Beth, who have fallen in love, now must join forces against both Cane and killer snowmen. Will they be able to stop Citizen Cane's wicked scheme? 

The Naked Gun runs 85 minutes long. I'm honestly surprised that it ran that long at all. It is more surprising to learn that the original also ran 85 minutes long. Perhaps another time I will compare the original with this sequel/reboot. For now, as I look at the 2025 Naked Gun, I find that it is...fine. 

The film, written by Dan Gregor, Doug Mand and director Akiva Schaffer, had some amusing bits and sight gags. One of The Naked Gun's greatest elements is in how it takes literal bits to make humorous moments and puns. The original had those in spades, where it threw endless gags and puns visual and verbal at you. Here though, they did not feel that funny. I thought the idea of opening the film with a literal PLOT Device was at least amusing. That "Primordial Law of Toughness" was the meaning of PLOT in "PLOT Device" felt as if it came from a more standard comedy. It might have done better if no one ever commented on what if anything "PLOT" meant. It would be just that: a literal "PLOT Device" and nothing more. 

Over and over, I thought that everyone involved with The Naked Gun was trying to be funny. I would even say that they were attempting to ratch up the humor a few notches. It just felt forced to me. When Frank Drebin, Jr. ends up framing himself, it could have been funny. Neeson gave it his all to try and make it so. For example, he finds a note telling him to pick up a tape recorder and say, "I did it" and he does exactly that. However, it played as if everyone knew that it was "funny", which in turn ended up making it not hilarious but labored.

Even for something as short as The Naked Gun, the scene with the killer snowman never felt funny even without its world. It looked like outtakes from Jack Frost. 

The thing about comedy, particularly something in the Naked Gun style, is that no one is supposed to play it as if they are aware that they are in a comedy. Some of the best comedies from Some Like It Hot to National Lampoon's Animal House to the original Naked Gun play their scenarios perfectly straight. I never got the sense that such was the case here. Instead, I got the sense that everyone knew that The Naked Gun was supposed to be a comedy. 

Again, there were funny moments. I thought, for example, that poor Ed Hocken, Jr. handing out free beers to everyone no questions asked, even a child, was amusing. There is a quick bit where he is sharing beer with children, which I did smile at. However, this bit had little buildup. It happened because someone thought it would be hilarious. It was, fine.

The same can be said for the performances. I think Liam Neeson took on this role because it would be a nice way to play against his own second persona as a tough action star. Once, Liam Neeson was seen as a serious dramatic actor, culminating with his Oscar-nominated turn in Schindler's List. Once he appeared in Taken, Neeson was transformed into an action star, where he has been for close to twenty years. I think Neeson as I said gave it his all to make Frank Drebin, Jr. into this bumbling moron. However, I never got the sense that Neeson could make himself into the bumbling moron his character needed to be. In a curious criticism, Liam Neeson seemed too smart to play dumb. 

The same can be said for both Pamela Anderson as our femme fatale and Danny Huston as our evil villain. I think that they tried. They worked to make themselves funny. The problem, again, is that everyone seemed to want to be smarter than the material. I did not laugh at Anderson's Beth attempting bad scatting at the nightclub. I never had any interest in Huston's Cane's plans for unleashing chaos.

As a side note, you couldn't have made one "Citizen Cane" quip or "Cane" related pun? 

I know that there are people who report to laughing nonstop at The Naked Gun. Yes, there were bits that were amusing. However, I was not falling down laughing. It was fine. It was barely passable. The Naked Gun is not up to the original's legacy. 

DECISION: C+

Misery: A Review

MISERY

Long before such things as "toxic fandom" and "stans" came to prominence, Misery touched on the possessive nature of fans. Well-acted, quietly intense, but for one expected moment Misery would be brilliant.

Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is the successful author of the Misery Chastain series of novels. The romance version of Sherlock Holmes has made him rich and famous, his editor Marcia Sindell (Lauren Bacall) reminds him. However, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Paul has grown resentful towards Misery, feeling that it keeps him from better work. With that, his eighth and newest Misery novel Misery's Child will kill off his golden goose.

Paul has finished Misery's Child in the Colorado mountains where he always writes. Caught in a snowstorm when leaving, Paul has a major car crash. He awakens in the remote cabin of Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates). Annie is not just a nurse but Sheldon's self-described "number one fan". The accident has disabled Paul to such a point that he cannot be safely moved. Moreover, the snowstorm has left the Wilkes farm isolated from the nearby community. 

Annie seems nice if a bit mercurial and excessively attached to the character of Misery. When she reads Misery's Child with Paul's blessings, Paul is terrified by her reaction. Annie is violently enraged that Misery has been killed off. She will not stand for this murder. After ordering a weak Paul to destroy his newest unpublished work based on his early years, Annie now demands that Misery be revived. This begins a battle of wits and wills between Annie and Paul. 

Paul's disappearance has alarmed Miss Sindell, who contacts the local sheriff. That sheriff, Buster (Richard Farnsworth), believes that Paul may be dead. As he begins investigating alongside his wife Virginia (Frances Sternhagen), he soon starts thinking that Paul is alive but still in danger. He also begins to delve into the Misery world, coming upon a quote from one of the novels that triggers a memory. That memory leads him to wonder if Annie Wilkes, in her isolated farm, has something to do with Paul's disappearance, as her past as a murderess comes to light. Who will live and who will die by Misery's hand?

I do not know that today, people appreciate just how popular Misery was when it was released. The expression "I'm your Number One fan" became something of a catchphrase, albeit one that signaled that the speaker was bonkers. I think that, with hindsight of thirty-five years, Misery was far ahead of its time. Misery captures the possessive manner of fans, in this case of a literary series. Today, we see many fans of works as varied as the vampire Twilight books to the long-established Star Wars franchise be at times enraged by something that the original creators do. How much of a stretch is it from an Annie Wilkes getting hung up on minutia of Sheldon's Misery universe to say Doctor Who fans who can point out inconsistencies and contradictions. Misery is a dark portrayal of deranged fandom taken to the ultimate extreme. In that, I am surprised that William Goldman's adaptation of Stephen King's novel has not been given more credit for being prescient about how unhinged some devotees can be when it comes to the object of their fandom.

Misery is exceptionally well-acted. Kathy Bates created a villainess for the ages. Bates balances an almost sweet and disarming manner to someone who is beyond dangerous. She can switch on a dime from gleeful at recounting her enthusiasm about Misery's Return (the novel Annie forced Paul to write) to psychotic about Paul making the most innocuous statements. In between the rages and the notorious foot-maiming scene, Bates also allows bits of genuine vulnerability, even sadness. Bates' performance is so strong that through it, with Goldman's script, we get a moment of levity at Annie's expense. As she criticizes Paul for trying to cheat the audience, Annie tells him that he has to change everything except naming the gravedigger after her. That, she tells him in a staccato manner, he can keep. She is oblivious to how naming the gravedigger after her is not a compliment. 

Bates' scene where she recounts her rage at a movie serial getting a detail wrong has become legendary, at times mocked. It also, thanks to Goldman's adaption, reveals a quirk in Annie's nature. As she screams about the "cock-a-doodie car", we see someone who will not swear. A major point in Annie is her refusal to use even the mildest of vulgarities. That, however, sets up a rarely commented moment in Annie and Paul's final confrontation, when she calls him a "lying c**ksucker". 

Kathy Bates may have been the one to walk off with an Oscar for Misery, but there was not a bad performance in the film. It is a surprise that James Caan did not receive a nomination as well. His performance as Paul Sheldon was nowhere near as flashy as that of Bates. However, he was still effective as the tormented, at times arrogant Paul. I personally thought that it would have been better for the character to play along with Annie versus being as combative as he was. That being said, Caan is an excellent dance partner to Bates' unhinged intensity.

The supporting performances of Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen as Buster and Virginia are the closest Misery has to "comic relief". Do not misunderstand my meaning; they were not comic characters or performances. Farnsworth, in his quiet manner, was dedicated and intelligent, following the investigation in a methodical manner to its shocking conclusion. However, he and Sternhagen brought a little bit of impish charm to this married couple that could playfully play off each other. Their scenes were nice, even funny, where we saw Buster and Virginia jokingly insult the other. They brought lightness and a sense of calm to the at times wild goings-on in the film. 

None wilder than the aforementioned foot-maiming scene. Director Rob Reiner was actually restrained in this grisly scene. Just as many people remember the Psycho shower scene as being more graphic than it actually is, the foot-maiming is not as graphic as I had remembered it. Contrary to memories, we see on-screen only one ankle twisted. The rest of the scene merely suggests the other ankle met a similarly gruesome fate. It is through Reiner's direction of the scene and his actors, along with Bates and Caan's performances, that makes that scene more intense that what is actually on screen.

In every element I think Misery excels except for when we get Annie coming back for a second smackdown. I had hoped against hope that we would not see her make a jump-scare, but I suppose that is what audiences either wanted or expected. I knocked down a point for that. 

Minus that, Misery still holds up extremely well as a suspense thriller. 

DECISION: B+

The Phoenician Scheme: A Review (Review #2036)

THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME

By now, even the most casual filmgoer knows what he or she will be getting when they go to a Wes Anderson film. Enchanting to some, maddening to others, Anderson will never deviate from his twee aesthetic. Now, we get his newest film, The Phoenician Scheme. We see some old faces, some new faces, and the same droll manner that this time left me terribly, terribly cold.

Billionaire industrialist Anatole "Zsa-Zsa" Korda (Benicio del Toro) has survived yet another plane crash/assassination attempt. Hovering between life and death, Zsa-Zsa has visions of Heaven, but the divine court is unsure of whether or not he will enter Paradise.

Deciding to get things in order before his end (whenever that should be) Zsa-Zsa contacts his estranged daughter, Liesl (Mia Threapleton). Liesl is a Catholic novitiate who wants nothing to do with Zsa-Zsa. This frosty relationship is due in part to the suspicion that Zsa-Zsa murdered Liesl's mother in a jealous rage. Zsa-Zsa insists that he did no such thing. As The Phoenician Scheme goes on, we find that he technically did not pull the trigger but set the scene.

Liesl, somewhat reluctantly, goes with Zsa-Zsa as he sets off the Phoenician Scheme. He will get other people to fund his latest project involving a nuclear power plant and/or a dam. Zsa-Zsa is thoroughly unscrupulous in his business deals. Liesl watches as does Bjorn Lund (Michael Cera), Zsa-Zsa's secretary and entomologist. He cons two California businessmen (Tom Hanks and Bryan Cranston) despite his poor basketball skills. Phoenician Prince Farouk (Riz Ahmed) is to be fair, worse at basketball, having no concept of the game. He blackmails Marseilles Bob (Mathieu Amalric) but does save his life (albeit accidentally) from revolutionaries led by Sergio (Richard Ayoade). Finally, he threatens the life of his frenemy Marty (Jeffrey Wright) but does get him to pitch in.

Still, Zsa-Zsa is still half short of his financial goals. Could his cousin Hilda (Scarlett Johansson) be able to help? Will she agree to marry Zsa-Zsa anyway? What of Zsa-Zsa's half-brother Nubar (Benedict Cumberbatch)? Nubar is an investor in the Phoenician Scheme. He is a fierce rival to Zsa-Zsa. He may also be Liesl's biological father and her mother's murderer. Will the scheme ultimately work? Will Zsa-Zsa be able to buy his way to Heaven? Is there a potential traitor within Zsa-Zsa's inner circle?

I'm reluctant to use the expression, "You've seen one, you've seen them all" when it comes to Wes Anderson's oeuvre. This is especially true since there have been Wes Anderson films that I have genuinely liked, such as Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Terms like "quirky" and "twee" are often used to describe Anderson's cinematic style. Some people love this style. I barely accepted Asteroid City and disliked his short film The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, which finally made him an Oscar winner. 

The Phoenician Scheme was not to my liking. Granted, you had lots of heady themes here: life, the afterlife, the good or evil that you do in the world following you to the next. However, I think that Anderson's deadpan manner, where everyone and everything is staccato, failed to make me care.

Some actors genuinely struggled with this manner. Of particular note is Anderson's fellow Oscar winner Riz Ahmed (who also won for his short film, the atrocious The Long Goodbye). He, in a curious criticism, seemed too animated for all of this. Ahmed could not make himself fit into Anderson's droll, deadpan manner. Tom Hanks and Bryan Cranston could. Even Michael Cera could. Ahmed, conversely, looked genuinely lost trying to be emotionless. 

I also thought little of Benedict Cumberbatch as Nubar. Looking like Rasputin's crazier cousin, he continues to show that his acting is solely based on his rich and luxurious baritone. Unlike Ahmed, he did not struggle with Anderson's insistence on having the characters look almost comatose in their line delivery. Like Ahmed, he never convinced me that he believed these were even fictional people.

This was not a problem for Mia Threapleton. She got into the act quite well, able to keep up with the Andersonian dryness. At times, I thought Threapleton veered close to a parody of Andersonian dryness. However, by this time Anderson is so standard that I think it would be hard to parody something that already plays as parody.

Benicio del Toro was certainly in on the joke as Zsa-Zsa. I think he did well in The Phoenician Scheme. His character was amoral but who slowly, very slowly, started wondering if it was right. Seeing bits of Heaven and even a chat with God (Bill Murray) might do that with people. 

As a side note, I admit to chuckling when one of the federal government agents referred to the mole inside Zsa-Zsa's inner circle as "the bureaucrat from Baltimore". 

The Phoenician Scheme does have typically strong aesthetics in its costuming and set decoration. If one thing can be counted on with Wes Anderson, it is that his films will always look quirky, whimsical and yes, twee. 

That, however, seems to be an investment of diminishing returns. Aesthetics and style can go only so far. The Phoenician Scheme is a film I barely remember watching. I do not know if that is a good thing or not.

DECISION: D+

Show Boat (1936): A Review (Review #2035)

SHOW BOAT (1936)

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Irene Dunne.

I believe that there are at least two Broadway musicals that changed the musical theater. One of them is Oklahoma! where the story was as important as the singing and dancing. I think that Show Boat was the other. It too blended songs with plot but also tackled serious subjects like racism and miscegenation when musicals were seen as lighthearted confections. This second adaptation of the Jerome Kern & Oscar Hammerstein musical is a strong, beautiful adaptation with fine performances. It also has one moment that will probably shock modern audiences but which accurately albeit sadly reflect both the times it was set and made.

The Cotton Palace riverboat comes down the Mississippi to bring entertainment to the various communities on the river. Captain Andy Hawks (Charles Winninger) has brought a cavalcade of stars to sing, dance and act for audiences white and black. His wife Parthy (Helen Westley) is not keen on Andy giving townsfolk so many "free samples" of the various entertainments aboard the Cotton Palace. She is even less keen on her daughter Magnolia (Irene Dunne) being BFF with the main female performer, Julie LaVerne (Helen Morgan), the Little Sweetheart of the South. 

As it stands, Julie is keeping a secret, which is revealed when jealous crewman Pete (Arthur Hohl) goes to the local sheriff. Julie is biracial, passing for white and married to her white leading man, Steve Baker (Donald Cook). Steve will not leave Julie even though he married her knowing that she was half-black. This leaves the Cotton Palace in a jam. Very reluctantly, Parthy goes along with the idea to make Magnolia's theatrical dreams come true.

Joining her in those aspirations is charming gambler Gaylord Ravenal (Allan Jones), who becomes the new idol of wide-eyed theatrical patrons. Magnolia and Gaylord fall in love and eventually move away to Chicago. Gay's gambling starts out strong, affording them a nice life. However, like all gambler's lucky streaks, it ends. Feeling shame, Gay moves away, unaware that Magnolia is with child. She now has to rebuild her life, aided by former Cotton Palace hoofers Frank Schultz (Sammy White) and Ellie May Chipley (Queenie Smith). Also commenting from time to time are the "Negro" crew, husband and wife Joe (Paul Robeson) and Queenie (Hattie McDaniel). Will Magnolia and Gaylord reunite in the end, or will Old Man River just keep rolling along? 

I think I should start by getting what I figure will be the most controversial part of Show Boat out of the way. Late in the film, there is a musical number which was added to the film adaptation. Gallavantin' Aroun' is performed in blackface. If one is not prepared for such a moment (and to be honest, I doubt anyone who saw the 1951 version would know of it), the sight of Irene Dunne and her fellow performers painted up that way would shock, perhaps anger. 

As a side note, Show Boat has black audience members watching this number from the segregated balcony seats. I can only imagine what the black extras must have thought at the sight of this spectacle.

I in no way condone blackface. I think thought that viewers should keep some things in perspective. Blackface was sadly an acceptable entertainment style both for when Show Boat is set as well as in 1936. Mercifully, such practices were slowly fading out. I also think that under director James Whale, Show Boat gave some dignity to the two main black actors. Paul Robeson and Hattie McDaniel have a great duet in Ah Still Suits Me, another addition for the film adaptation. Their characters are treated with more respect than other black characters in movies from the era. 

McDaniel's Queenie even manages to put Pete in his place early in the film. Pete, who has been pursuing Julie despite knowing her racial background, notices that Queenie has a new piece of jewelry. He asks her where she got it. "It was a gift to me," Queenie coyly says. "Who gave it to you?" Pete barks. Queenie slyly replies, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies," laughing as she walks away. 

McDaniel and Robeson in Show Boat did something that few black actors at the time were allowed to do, which was to play fully formed characters. Joe and Queenie were a loving couple whose relationship was a subplot, again rare for the time. They were also full participants in some of the musical numbers. Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man has three women singing sections of the song: Dunne, Morgan and McDaniel. In a way, this puts McDaniel on equal pairing with her white counterparts.

Robeson has perhaps the standout musical number in Show Boat: Old Man River. I think Robeson's rendition of Old Man River is the definitive version, deep, resonant and filled with that sense of despair that the lyrics call for. Director James Whale did something quite extraordinary in Old Man River. He first does a full 360-degree turn of the camera to Robeson's singing. He then shows the lyrics on screen. When he sings "Tote that barge!", we see the crew toting that barge. When he sings "Lift that bale!", we see Robeson struggling with the weight of the bale on his back. "Get a little drunk" shows him stumbling out of a saloon. "And you land in jail" shows him and others behind bars. It is an exceptionally filmed sequence. I think it is very rare in film when we see the lyrics literally play out before us. Whale was highly creative in his filming.

Irene Dunne is beautiful and charming as Magnolia. She handled the musical moments well, making Magnolia a sweet and delightful young woman who eventually ages to a grande dame of the theater. Her final scene with Allan Jones while the next generation takes to the stage is deeply moving. Dunne balances the singing and acting. While I found her tones a bit operatic, they were also casual, and she kept a good Southern drawl.

Helen Morgan had created the role of the tragic Julie in the original Broadway production and recreated her performance for this film adaptation. Morgan's personal problems plagued her life, which is why Show Boat was her final film, dying five years later. I was moved by her performance as Julie, a woman who finds in Magnolia a sister and confidant whom fate allows her to help secretly. Helen Westley and Charles Winninger were delightful as Parthy and Captain Andy, a couple that bickered but showed genuine love between them.

If there is a weakness in Show Boat, it is in Allan Jones as the rakish Gaylord Ravenal. I did not think that he was either attractive or charming enough for the role. He sang well, but he seemed a bit nondescript for the character. 

Show Boat has moments of tenderness and even moments of humor. During a performance of a melodrama, we see Elly May's malapropisms where she claimed to have been plucked by a passing mule when she meant "male". In the same scene, an audience member threatens to shoot down the actor playing the villain for his evil on-stage actions, forcing the poor actor to flee for his life.

Show Boat is a well-acted, well-crafted film. The unfortunate blackface number aside, Show Boat is a film that entertains and showcases some great talents in Irene Dunne, Paul Robeson and Hattie McDaniel. This is a Show Boat that will sail for years to come.

DECISION: A-